Ex-Im Bank, amnesty, and Tiger: Letters

A Front Burner column on Friday from the Florida Chamber of Commerce asserted that the Export-Import Bank is necessary for the success of Florida's flourishing export industry ("Financing helps Fla. firms keep up with foreign rivals," by Alice Ancona).

Between 2007 and 2014, just 1.8 percent of Florida exports were supported by this taxpayer-backed bank. We should applaud exporters, while realizing 98.2 percent of exports happened without the help of Ex-Im.

Not only is the bank unnecessary for nearly every American exporter, but it harms domestic companies that have to compete with Ex-Im beneficiaries in foreign countries.

Mosaic, an American fertilizer company with a shipping facility in Tampa, now has to compete with a Moroccan fertilizer company that is getting a $117 million loan guarantee from the Export-Import Bank. That means thousands of Tampa-based jobs will be competing with a foreign, state-owned company subsidized by Tampa-area residents.

The assertion that Ex-Im loans are safe is similar to claims made by proponents of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A recent Congressional Budget Office report suggested the bank's programs actually operate at a deficit and will cost taxpayers some $2 billion in the next decade.

Political favoritism and cronyism for less than 2 percent of U.S. exports does not justify the risk the bank imposes on taxpayers, or the jobs jeopardized. Congress should let the bank's authorization expire this fall.

What a sense of deja vu I experienced in reading Robert L. Moore's guest column about the anniversary of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution ("The other 'Guns of August': What led to the Vietnam War," Aug. 1).

He is stuck in the anti-Vietnam War talking points of the early 1970s, while claiming that the myths he recites are "well-established in the historical record." He cites President Eisenhower's explanation for his support for Saigon's rejection of an election in both North and South Vietnam as if that were some nefarious subversion of democracy.

In fact, the idea of a fair election in a country where more than half the population was already under a totalitarian regime was a joke. The very observers from Canada, India and Poland Moore mentions said that conditions would not allow a fair election.

Also, the deceit of the Johnson administration in getting the support of the Tonkin Resolution from Congress does not obscure the fact that by 1973, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong had been defeated in their attempt to conquer South Vietnam.

But the Democratic Congress in 1974-75 welshed on the U.S. commitment to help South Vietnam, just as President Obama was unwilling to push for securing our victory in Iraq after 2008. Rehashing falsehoods, claiming they are "historical scholarship" will not wash.

John A. RenickGrand Island

Countering Obama's leadership checklist

In his letter to the editor on Saturday, David Cruise hit most Democratic talking points in his adulation of President Obama. He did so for a president who is enjoying low "trustability" ratings.

I won't go into his bizarre menu of the president's leadership "accomplishments" again, but a good illustration was his assertion that Obama has strengthened our border security. Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would disagree with that, lauding the president's "let 'em all in" policy as humane and American.

Perhaps Cruise has never operated in the corporate world, where real leadership is often seen — or, similarly, in the military, where men are asked to march toward death by leaders they respect. In both settings, bad leadership at the top results in demotion or replacement — something that presidents need not reasonably fear. In both cases, leadership effectiveness is judged by evidence down the line — in how units or companies fulfill the vision of whoever resides at the top.

Obama, or his subordinates, have spread scandal throughout the executive branch. They have done so with impunity. There has been no accountability; no adjustment in policy. During his administration, we have seen time and again Obama's trifold crisis-response strategy: ignore, deny, blame it on someone else. That does not illustrate good leadership to me.

Before ascending to the presidency, Obama never "led" anything. The White House is a dangerous place for on-the-job training.

Unlike Scolaro, I came to the United States from Italy — and, I might add, legally. It took us three years to get a visa. We had to have a sponsor, a guaranteed job and a place to stay, plus we had to undergo a background check, fingerprinting and a physical examination before we were given a visa.

Now Scolaro wants the U.S. to reward all unauthorized immigrants, who broke the laws, with amnesty. This is a slap in the face for all of us who follow the laws.

Scolaro, like liberals who seem to forget that President Reagan gave amnesty to nearly 3 million people, is talking about amnesty for 11 million people. How many will there be 20 years from now? When is it going to end? How about opening our borders to everyone and be done with it?